Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Do dogs have souls?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Under your bed!
    Posts
    12,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Psychonomaly View Post
    A basic understanding of logic is what you disregard when you expect empirical solutions to teleological problems.
    I see no reason why a teleological issue can not be held to the standards of empirical evidence, no one in science seems to have a problem there. Unless you're going to bring out an equivalent to the Teleological argument for god - then well, I was right.

    Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know. ~ M. King Hubbert

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Grey View Post
    I see no reason why a teleological issue can not be held to the standards of empirical evidence, no one in science seems to have a problem there. Unless you're going to bring out an equivalent to the Teleological argument for god - then well, I was right.
    A teleological issue can be held to the standards of empirical evidence. But it can also be held to the standard of logical evidence. Lack of empirical evidence is not a refutation of logical evidence unless or until the science contradicts the reason. You ask hypothetical questions; I give you hypothetical answers. And I side with Dawkins in the argument from design.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Under your bed!
    Posts
    12,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Psychonomaly View Post
    A teleological issue can be held to the standards of empirical evidence. But it can also be held to the standard of logical evidence. Lack of empirical evidence is not a refutation of logical evidence unless or until the science contradicts the reason. You ask hypothetical questions; I give you hypothetical answers. And I side with Dawkins in the argument from design.

    No you don't.

    Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know. ~ M. King Hubbert

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,273
    Debating the presence or absence of souls in any species without the context of specific theological backgrounds seems beyond silly to me. The internal logic of, say, Lutheranism, will have a very different effect on the relations of dogs, humans, and souls, than the internal logic of Buddhism, just as Islam's logic will yield a different conclusion than Wicca.

    Although, in light of the forum IG chose to put this thread in, perhaps the one conceptual framework that can provide an internal logic that's valid across the board is science. Exactly how far that system can go in speaking on matters like the possession of souls is iffy at best, though.
    Last edited by Tiberias; August 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 PM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Under your bed!
    Posts
    12,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiberias View Post
    Debating the presence or absence of souls in any species without the context of specific theological backgrounds seems beyond silly to me. The internal logic of, say, Lutheranism, will have a very different effect on the relations of dogs, humans, and souls, than the internal logic of Buddhism, just as Islam's logic will yield a different conclusion than Wicca.

    Although, in light of the forum IG chose to put this thread in, perhaps the one conceptual framework that can provide an internal logic that's valid across the board is science. Exactly how far that system can go in speaking on matters like the possession of souls is iffy at best, though.
    The concept of souls is silly really, especially as they rely on the internal logic of individual frameworks - yet many insist we have one. Either a soul exists or it does not or it's little more than a metaphor.

    Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know. ~ M. King Hubbert

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    184
    "The argument from design is the only one still in regular use today, and it still sounds to many like the ultimate knockdown argument. The young Darwin was impressed by it when, as a Cambridge undergraduate, he read it in William Paley's Natural Theology. Unfortunately for Paley, the mature Darwin blew it out of the water. There has probably never been a more devastating rout of popular belief by clever reasoning than Charles Darwin's destruction of the argument from design. It was so unexpected. Thanks to Darwin, it is no longer true to say that nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Evolution by natural selection produces an excellent simulacrum of design, mounting prodigious heights of complexity and elegance. And among these eminences of pseudo-design are nervous systems which - among their more modest accomplishments - manifest goal-seeking behaviour that, even in a tiny insect, resembles a sophisticated heatseeking missile more than a simple arrow on target."
    -- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiberias View Post
    Although, in light of the forum IG chose to put this thread in, perhaps the one conceptual framework that can provide an internal logic that's valid across the board is science. Exactly how far that system can go in speaking on matters like the possession of souls is iffy at best, though.
    In order to discuss a hypothetical concept within the framework of science, we would first have to agree upon a solid definition for the concept (soul), then work out perceived logical inconsistencies to determine whether it's worth pursuing in that respect.
    Last edited by Psychonomaly; August 23rd, 2010 at 06:39 AM.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •